91–100 of 133 posts
This idea of misinformation, mallace, trolling, psychological warfare is the single most issue about technology that makes me uneasy and nervous.
All Americans on both sides should be outraged at Russia. Their goal is to further divide us via social media and thus news which they have been extremely successful at. This idea of misinformation, mallace, trolling, psychological warfare is the single most issue about technology that makes me uneasy and nervous.
All Americans on both sides should be outraged at Russia. Their goal is to further divide us via social media and thus news which they have been extremely successful at. This idea of misinformation, mallace, trolling, psychological warfare is the single most issue about technology that makes me uneasy and nervous.
Can we be outraged at ourselves for falling for this bullshit?
This is really a pretty fascinating example of psyops in the wild. Propaganda for both "tribes" assembled in opposition over various issues in order to sow more division between them. Imagery clearly designed to influence with emotion, twisting the dials of fear, anger and pride in the audience. The power to disseminate information (or disinformation) is not one that should be taken lightly. It seems that most of the…
> It seems that most of the human race was deployed to production with a pretty critical RCE vulnerability, and the patches available (education in its various forms) do not appear to be sufficient to protect the whole system from corruption. I don't get what education has to do with it. HN is a forum full of hyper-educated users, but it still greys out downvoted comments by default. I don't think the reason for that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how are these any different than the standard appeal to emotion arguments that groups make in good faith? e.g., why is an ad trying to raise awareness about black lives matter from russia any different than an ad trying to raise awareness about black lives matter from black lives matter? > The power to disseminate information (or disinformation) is not one that should be taken lightly. curious to know if you believe…
Some of the ads I was reading were would take extreme stances that make the other side get a distorted view of a group. I saw an LGBT ad from Russia that suggested we make it illegal for heterosexuals to adopt. This would do damage to said movements in that people will ignore their legitimate messages as well when them deem them extremists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worse yet: "the opposite policy of my enemy is my policy". We're seeing situations on both sides where people are taking positions in arguments solely because it's the opposite position of their opponents. Because taking any less than the polar opposite position would be seen as "going soft on them" by their electorate. It's a total shitshow.
The funniest example right now are the Rs who are against USA violence in Syria but for it in Iran, juxtaposed with the Ds who are against USA violence in Iran but for it in Syria. Syria and Iran are allies, and there is no compelling reason for USA violence in either nation. The whole war media narrative has really gone off the rails...
South Korea and the US are allies too, but only one of us is at war, albeit technically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, of course these aren't even supposed to directly champion one or the other. Their point is clearly to amplify the existing "us vs. them" mentality, make people even more entrenched, and to encourage the thinking on both sides that the other side is out to get them. Classic divide and conquer.
But how does this change results? There are still two main candidates. If those leaning toward A lean harder toward A, and those leaning toward B lean harder toward B, no votes were changed as a result of this effort. There is no box to check on the ballot for "I'm really sure, so count my vote twice!" A great unmentioned step in this whole bizarre theoretical process is the idea that, absent some FB ads, lots of Rep…
*/s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing could ever make compromise more unlikely than a winner take all voting system that has then predictably created exactly two parties whose followers again following the incentives rarely have an original though beyond "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
> winner take all voting system It was pretty entertaining watching people complain about the electoral college system in the 2016 election. "Why should someone in Wyoming have more of a vote than someone in California!?!" No mention of winner takes all, though: that would enable a certain basket of deplorables in CA to vote (and have it mean something.)
I'm more ambivalent about the use of "nasty woman" -- perhaps because I'm blue tribe, but also because the word "nasty" is more ambivalent. It can mean annoying, cruel, promiscuous, or just gross. If it's the last meaning, saying that people have a reflexive negative emotional judgement of you is a far cry from the above, which is a moral judgement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you seriously overestimate how unbiased you are. I say this because you talk as if it's easy to separate fact from fiction these days. If you think it's easy, then I think there are some very important things you're missing.
I wish my point came across clearer. It wasn’t that I am unbiased. It’s that the comments on this story are willfully ignorant of what we do know. For example it hasn’t been a secret for well over a year that the Russian disinformation played both sides. Yet what do we find? Repeated surprise at the lack of onesidedness in the linked advertisements.
That was anti-climatic. How exactly did these ads sway the election? In fact, many of them are pro-gay and have liberal idea.
If both parties are unified in pursuit of one goal, then we may act vigorously on it over the long term through the course of multiple changes in which party controls what. If both parties can't stand each other enough to cooperate on anything, then foreign policy and behavior will be half-hearted pushes in constantly changing directions.
Russia can't and doesn't want to control us entirely. They do want us to not interfere effectively in their attempts to control the neighboring Eastern European states.